College of San Mateo Student Equity Plan November 2014 College of San Mateo Student Equity Plan 1
COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO STUDENT EQUITY PLAN Table of Contents Signature Page Executive Summary Target Groups Goals Activities Resources Contact Person/Student Equity Coordinator Campus-Based Research Overview Indicator Definitions and Data Access Course Completion (Retention) ESL and Basic Skills Completion Degree and Certificate Completion Goals and Activities Access Course Completion (Retention) ESL and Basic Skills Completion Degree and Certificate Completion Transfer Budget Sources of Funding Evaluation Schedule and Process Attachments (Optional) College of San Mateo Student Equity Plan 2
Executive Summary At the apex of College of San Mateo s planning process is its Mission Statement, which drives planning at both the institutional level and the program level and clearly puts student success at the center of the college s planning. The College s Diversity Statement calls out the college s policy of inclusiveness that recognizes values and reflects the diversity of the community the college serves. To achieve its stated mission, the college has adopted the following Institutional Priorities: Priority 1: Improve Student Success Priority 2: Promote Academic Excellence Priority 3: Develop Responsive, High-Quality Programs and Services Priority 4: Support Professional Development Priority 5: Implement the Integrated Planning Cycle and Ensure Fiscal Stability and the Efficient Use of Resources Priority 6: Enhance Institutional Dialog CSM s Institutional Priorities are reviewed each year by the Institutional Planning Committee (IPC), the body that has overarching stewardship for the ongoing implementation and assessment of College of San Mateo s institutional planning process. In addition, each year, IPC reviews the Educational Master Plan (EMP), a document based on quantitative and qualitative data and information that informs planning. The EMP includes extensive student achievement data. The Institutional Priorities and their associated objectives are reviewed annually by IPC. Based on a review of institutional data, objectives may be added or reviewed to assist the institution in achieving these Institutional Priorities. In addition, the college has established a College Index, which identifies a number of key college indicators and is reviewed annually by IPC. Many of the college indicators are aligned with the indicators identified in the Student Equity Plan, as well as the statewide Scorecard, including student success, persistence, retention, and completion. Finally, IPC reviews all departmental program reviews. As part of the program review process, the Office of Planning, Research, and Institutional Effectiveness provides each department with a variety of data regarding their programs, including data and information about student demographics, program efficiency, and other student achievement data. Themes and trends identified through program review are forwarded to IPC as part of their institutional planning cycle and process. One of the key institutional priorities is Improving Student Success. A number of collegewide initiatives have been developed and approved by IPC to improve the success of specific student
populations, including, but not limited to the establishment of a Puente Program and an Umoja Program. The preparation of the Student Equity Plan was the responsibility of the Student Equity Task Force, a participatory committee established by IPC in the spring, 2014 semester. Many members of the Task Force also serve on the Diversity in Action Group, the committee that developed prior Student Equity plans for the college. The Student Equity Plan was approved by IPC at its September 19, 2014 meeting. Details on the student equity goals and groups for whom the goals have been set, the activities, and selected resources to support accomplishing these goals are found in the following pages. Expected outcomes for each activity and the department/person responsible for implementing the activity are specified. Based on the Task Force s review of data the majority of goals and activities focus on the following student populations/programs: Students aged 18-24, with special emphasis on high school graduates from feeder high schools African American, Latino, and Pacific Island students Low income seniors Foster and incarcerated youth Veteran students AB 540 students ESL and basic skills students Probation students Revitalize CTE programs College of San Mateo s local research has addressed and analyzed all components of the Student Equity reporting requirements. The starting point of CSM s equity data is access the extent to which our student population reflects the larger demographic profile of San Mateo County. However, access alone is insufficient. CSM s equity data address student outcomes as well as access. The equity data provided examines the extent to which all various student populations are succeeding at equitable rates. The populations analyzed for disproportionate impact include ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, low income status, foster youth status, and veterans status. These various student populations are tracked to measure equitable outcomes on the following core measures of academic success: overall successful course completion; ESL, English, and Math basic skills course completion and subsequent progression to degree-applicable/transfer level coursework; degree and certificate completion of students with informed educational goals; transfer readiness and transfer; and various types of academic probation.
Campus-Based Research A. ACCESS. Compare the percentage of each population group that is enrolled to the percentage of each group in the adult population within the community served. College of San Mateo s local research has identified the extent to which various groups residing in San Mateo County are underrepresented, overrepresented, or identical to CSM s student population who reside San Mateo County. Proportional representation rates (San Mateo County vs. CSM student population) are analyzed: ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, low income economic status, foster youth, and veterans. In terms of ethnicity, the two most overrepresented populations are Pacific Islanders and Multi-racial students. As expected, students aged 20-24 are the most overrepresented and those aged 60 and older are the most underrepresented. Male and female students mirror their proportional representation in San Mateo County as a whole. CSM enrolls a greater proportion of disabled students than their presence in San Mateo County as a whole. Low income students 65 years or older are underrepresented in terms of their overall presence in San Mateo County. Foster youth and veteran students aged 18 54 are overrepresented in relation to their proportional representation in San Mateo County as a whole. Data for CSM Student Equity Plan 2014 Indicator #1 Access Access: Student Equity Plan Definition The percentage of each population group that is enrolled compared to that group s representation in the adult population within the community served. Data Included: Table 1: Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Ethnicity, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Table 2: Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Gender, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Table 3: Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Age, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Table 4: Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Disability Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Table 5: Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Economic Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Table 6. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Foster Youth Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013
Table 7. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Age and Veteran Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Key Findings: The proportional enrollment of all San Mateo County residents enrolling at CSM is presented in Tables 1-7. In accordance with the California Community College Chancellor s Office Student Equity Plan guidelines, the following populations are analyzed: 1. Ethnicity 2. Gender 3. Age 4. Disability status 5. Low income economic status 6. Foster Youth 7. Veterans The key reference indicator for access is the P Index, where a value of 1.00 = identical proportionality. That is, if a specific population comprised 10.0% of all San Mateo County residents and that same population comprised 10.0% of all CSM students, the P Index would = 1.00. In other words, the proportions of that population is equal. Any value less than 1.00 indicates that a specific San Mateo County population is under-represented in CSM s student body. Conversely, any value greater than 1.00 indicates that a group is over-represented. The proportionality metric is not intended to specify at which point a proportionality index should be considered as a disproportionate impact. The designation of which disaggregated populations should be considered as disproportionately under-represented is based on local conditions and will rely on the judgment of the CSM Student Equity team. The data presented are intended to stimulate conversation and investigation into areas where disproportionality may be affecting student success. For example, the age data presented in Table 3 reveals varying degrees of both under- and overrepresentation for various age categories. These range from a P Index = 5.33 for CSM students aged 20 24 to a P Index = 0.15 for students 60 years or older. The proportional representation of these two groups is to be understood in terms of the larger context of CSM s programs, services, and the larger college participation rates of these 2 groups.
Table 1. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Ethnicity, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 San Mateo County Residents CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County Count Percent P index Total 15 years and older 603,865 9,655 African American 2.7% 273 2.8% 1.04 American Indian/ Alaska Native 0.2% 25 0.3% 1.56 Asian 26.4% 2,100 21.8% 0.82 Hispanic 23.3% 2,088 21.6% 0.93 Multi races 2.3% 1,393 14.4% 6.20 Pacific Islander 1.4% 235 2.4% 1.77 White 43.7% 3,541 36.7% 0.84 Other 0.0% N/A 0.0% --- Unknown N/A 564 5.8% --- Notes: P index = proportionality index, which is the percentage of the CSM subgroup divided by the percentage of the county subgroup (e.g., for Hispanics, the index is 21.6% divided by 23.3% = 0.93). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both the college and the county at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the college than in the county. CSM data include only San Mateo County residents and do not include concurrently enrolled high school students. Census Bureau ethnic categories were adjusted to conform to CSM ethnic categories. Asian includes Filipino. Multi races includes Two or more races. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (CC-EST2012-ALLDATA-[ST[FIPS]); SMCCCD Student Database, End of term.
Table 2. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Gender, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 San Mateo County Residents CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County Count Percent Count Percent P Index Total 15 years and older 603,865 9,975 Male 294,714 48.8 4,816 48.3 0.99 Female 309,151 51.2 5,159 51.7 1.01 Unrecorded N/A N/A 244 2.4 --- Notes: P index = proportionality index, which is the percentage of the CSM subgroup divided by the percentage of the county subgroup (e.g., for Females, the index is 51.7% divided by 51.2% = 1.01). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both the college and the county at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the college than in the county. CSM data include only San Mateo County residents and do not include concurrently enrolled high school students. Census Bureau gender categories do not include unrecorded. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (CC-EST2012-ALLDATA-[ST[FIPS]); SMCCCD Student Database, End of term.
Table 3. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Age, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 San Mateo County Residents CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County Count Percent Count Percent Total 15 years and older 603,865 10,214 P Index 15 to 19 years 41,228 6.8 1,898 18.6 2.72 20 to 24 years 41,027 6.8 3,701 36.2 5.33 25 to 29 years 49,479 8.2 1,442 14.1 1.72 30 to 39 years 106,371 17.6 1,363 13.3 0.76 40 to 49 years 112,080 18.6 828 8.1 0.44 50 to 59 years 106,298 17.6 619 6.1 0.34 60 years or older 147,382 24.4 363 3.6 0.15 Notes: P index = proportionality index, which is the percentage of the CSM subgroup divided by the percentage of the county subgroup (e.g., for those 15 to 19 years old, the index is 18.6% divided by 6.8% = 2.72). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both the college and the county at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the college than in the county. CSM data include only San Mateo County residents and do not include concurrently enrolled high school students. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (CC-EST2012-ALLDATA-[ST[FIPS]); SMCCCD Student Database, End of term.
Table 4. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Disability Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County Residents San Mateo County Total With a disability Pct with a disability Total With a disability Pct with a disability P Index Persons 18 to 64 years 461,948 23,394 5.1% 10,001 871 8.7% 1.71 Persons 65 years and over 94,802 28,751 30.3% 213 88 41.3% 1.36 Notes: P index = proportionality index, which is the percentage of the CSM subgroup divided by the percentage of the county subgroup (e.g., for Persons 18 to 64 years, the index is 8.7% divided by 5.1% = 1.71). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both the college and the county at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the college than in the county. CSM data include only San Mateo County residents and do not include concurrently enrolled high school students. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810: Disability Characteristics; SMCCCD Student Database, End of term. Table 5. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Economic Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County Residents San Mateo County Population for whom poverty/economic status With Low Income With Low Income is determined Total Count Percent Total Count Percent P Index Total 18 years or older 556,133 69,626 12.5% 10,214 2,128 20.8% 1.66 18 to 64 years 461,331 56,852 12.3% 10,001 2,115 21.1% 1.72 65 years or older 94,802 12,774 13.5% 213 13 6.1% 0.45 Notes: P index = proportionality index, which is the percentage of the CSM subgroup divided by the percentage of the county subgroup (e.g., for Total 18 years or older, the index is 20.8% divided by 12.5% = 1.66). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both the college and the county at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the college than in the county. CSM data include only San Mateo County residents with known age and do not include concurrently enrolled high school students. CSM student economic status determined by student receipt of financial aid awards for low income students (e.g. BOG Fee Waivers A & B, Chafee Grant, etc.). Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B17024: Age by Ratio of Income to Poverty; SMCCCD Student Database, Financial Aid Awards.
Table 6. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Foster Youth Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Foster Youth Total Youth 16-20 Years Count Row Pct California 2,838,463 12,888 0.5 San Mateo County 44,947 130 0.3 CSM 3,075 43 1.4 P Index 4.67 Notes: P index = proportionality index, which is the percentage of the CSM subgroup divided by the percentage of the county subgroup (e.g., for foster youth 16 to 20 years old, the index is 1.4% divided by 0.3% = 4.67). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both the college and the county at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the college than in the county. CSM data include only San Mateo County residents and do not include concurrently enrolled high school students. Sources: Lucille Packard Foundation for Children s Health, kidsdata.org; State of California Department of Finance, Report P-3: State and County Population Projections by Race/Ethnicity, Detailed Age, and Gender, 2010-2060; SMCCCD Student Database, End of term. Table 7. Comparison of CSM Students Residing in San Mateo County vs. San Mateo County Residents, by Age and Veteran Status, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Total San Mateo County Residents CSM Students San Mateo County Veterans Row Total CSM Residing in San Mateo County Count Pct Students Count Row Pct P Index Civilian population 18 years and older 561,621 33,337 5.9 10,182 243 2.4 0.40 18 to 34 years 155,569 2,034 1.3 7,847 160 2.0 1.56 35 to 54 219,032 6,334 2.9 1,702 57 3.3 1.16 55 to 64 89,859 7,467 8.3 420 16 3.8 0.46 65 to 74 51,108 7,034 13.8 156 8 5.1 0.37 75 years and over 46,615 10,501 22.5 57 2 3.5 0.16 Notes: P index = proportionality index, which is the percentage of the CSM subgroup divided by the percentage of the county subgroup (e.g., for those 18 to 34 years old, the index is 2.0% divided by 1.3% = 1.56). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both the college and the county at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the college than in the county. CSM data include only San Mateo County residents and do not include concurrently enrolled high school students. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey (S2101 Veteran Status); SMCCCD Student Database, End of term.
District: San Mateo County Community College District College: College of San Mateo CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH B. COURSE COMPLETION. Ratio of the number of credit courses that students by population group actually complete by the end of the term compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term. Successful course completion of the following populations are analyzed: ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, low income economic status, academic standing, foster youth, and veterans. In terms of the primary Student Equity Plan reference point the 80% Index standard the following disaggregated sub-populations were experiencing disproportionate impact in terms of successful course completion rates: African Americans and students younger than 20 years of age. As expected, all student sub-populations who were placed on Probation 1, Probation 2, and Dismissed academic status experienced major disproportionate impact. When assessing disproportionate impact, caution is advised with low subgroup counts (n<50). The CSM Equity Committee will also closely examine other disparities and gaps in successful course completion rates that fall within the 80% Index standard. Data for CSM Student Equity Plan 2014 Indicator #2 Course Completion Course Completion: Student Equity Plan Definition The ratio of the number of credit courses that students, by population group, complete compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term. Course Completion means the successful completion of a credit course for which a student receives a recorded grade of A, B, C, or Credit. Data Included: Table 1: Successful Course Completion, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Key Findings: Table 1 displays successful course completion rates of CSM students enrolled in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013, combined. Successful course completion = earning a grade of A, B, C, P, or CR. The data presented are counts of all courses attempted/completed not student headcount. In accordance with the California Community College Chancellor s Office Student Equity Plan guidelines, the successful course completion rates of the following populations are analyzed: 8. Ethnicity College of San Mateo Student Equity Plan 14
9. Gender 10. Age 11. Disability status 12. Low income economic status 13. Academic standing (Probation 1, Probation 2, and Dismissed) 14. Foster Youth 15. Veterans The primary Student Equity Plan reference point is the 80% Index. This methodology compares the percentage of each disaggregated population to the percentage attained by a reference population. The reference population is the specific population with the highest rate of success. The methodology is based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 80% Rule, outlined in the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and was used in Title VII enforcement by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice. The 80% Rule states that: A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. [Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43 FR 38295(August 25, 1978)] Any disaggregated group that is included in a desired outcome at less than 80%, when compared to a reference group, is considered to have suffered an adverse or disproportionate - impact. Using this methodology, the 80% Index data column in Table 1 highlights the extent to which various populations successful course completion rates are within or outside of the 80% standard. Using age as an example. Students 60 years or older have the highest successful course completion rate: 83.2%. This group s success rate becomes the reference group standard (100%) for evaluating the other age subgroups in term of the 80% Index. The success rate of students younger than 20 = 65.8%. This figure is 79.1% of the reference group s success rate of 83.2%. Hence, their 80% Index = 79.1% and is below the 80% rule--and could be considered suffering disproportionate impact. The designation of which disaggregated populations should be considered as disproportionately impacted is based on local conditions and will rely on the judgment of the CSM Student Equity team. The 80% Index is a suggested guideline only. The data are intended to stimulate conversation and additional investigation into areas where disproportionate impact may be affecting student success. Care should be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50).
Table 1. Successful Course Completion, Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Enrollment Count (duplicated) Successful Course Completion Count Rate 80% Index Ethnicity African American 2,066 1,221 59.1% 78.4% American Indian/Alaskan Native 93 58 62.4% 82.7% Asian 6,865 5,132 74.8% 99.1% Filipino 3,372 2,441 72.4% 96.0% Hispanic 9,532 6,087 63.9% 84.7% Multi Races 7,270 4,806 66.1% 87.7% Pacific Islander 1,290 803 62.2% 82.6% White 14,444 10,642 73.7% 97.7% Unknown 2,785 2,100 75.4% 100.0% Total 47,717 33,290 69.8% 92.5% Gender Female 22,525 15,954 70.8% 100.0% Male 24,123 16,601 68.8% 97.2% Not recorded 1,069 735 68.8% 97.1% Total 47,717 33,290 69.8% 98.5% Age Younger than 20 years 12,802 8,419 65.8% 79.1% 20 24 years 19,103 13,025 68.2% 82.0% Disability Status 25 29 years 5,576 3,982 71.4% 85.9% 30 39 years 4,860 3,662 75.3% 90.6% 40 49 years 2,583 1,945 75.3% 90.5% 50 59 years 1,693 1,347 79.6% 95.7% 60 years and older 1,076 895 83.2% 100.0% Total 47,693 33,275 69.8% 83.9% Receives DSPS services 4,764 3,341 70.1% 100.0% No DSPS services 42,953 29,949 69.7% 99.4% Total 47,717 33,290 69.8% 99.5% Economic Status Low income student 10,300 6,528 63.4% 88.6% Not low income 37,417 26,762 71.5% 100.0% Academic Standing Total 47,717 33,290 69.8% 97.5% Good academic standing 40,438 31,340 77.5% 100.0% Probation 1 3,918 959 24.5% 31.6% Probation 2 1,985 627 31.6% 40.8% Dismissed 1,376 364 26.5% 34.1% Total 47,717 33,290 69.8% 90.0% Foster Youth Foster youth 516 252 48.8% 69.7% Not foster youth 47,201 33,038 70.0% 100.0% Total 47,717 33,290 69.8% 99.7% Veterans Veteran 1,282 883 68.9% 98.7% Not a veteran 46,435 32,407 69.8% 100.0% Total 47,717 33,290 69.8% 99.7%
Notes: The 80% Index compares the percentage of each disaggregated subgroup attaining an outcome to the percentage attained by the subgroup with the highest rate (reference subgroup). Care must be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50). The methodology is based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 80% Rule, outlined in the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and was used in Title VII enforcement by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice. A result of less than 80 percent is considered evidence of a disproportionate impact. Reference subgroups are in italics. Subgroups suffering disproportionate impact are in bold. CSM course completion data include do not include 690 courses or concurrently enrolled high school students. Source: SMCCCD Student Database: Academic History, Term GPA, and Financial Aid Awards tables.
District: San Mateo County Community College District College: College of San Mateo CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH C. ESL and BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION. Ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a degree-applicable course after having completed the final ESL or basic skills course compared to the number of those students who complete such a final course. CSM local research examined student progression in terms of various starting points for basic skills and ESL students. Progression rates of the following populations are analyzed: ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, low income economic status, academic standing, foster youth, and veterans. English basic skills students were tracked to enrollment in transfer level English. Higher level ESL students were tracked to the final ESL course in the sequence. In addition, the highest level ESL students were tracked to transfer level English. Elementary and Intermediate Algebra students were tracked separately into degree applicable and transfer level Math, respectively. Due to small n sizes associated with many of the disaggregated populations identified for disproportionate impact analysis, several groups were identified for disproportionate impact. Caution is advised with low subgroup counts (n<50). Beyond the 80% Index standard, the CSM Equity Committee is concerned about the low rates of overall progression of basic skills and ESL students to both degree applicable and transfer level coursework. Data for CSM Student Equity Plan 2014 Indicator #3 ESL and Basic Skills Completion ESL and Basic Skills Completion: Student Equity Plan Definition The ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a degree-applicable course after having completed the final ESL or basic skills course compared to the number of those students who complete such a final ESL or basic skills course. Data Included: 1. ENGL 838/848 Student Progression to ENGL 100, 2010/11 2013/14 2. ESL 828 Student Progression to ESL 400, 2010/11 2013/14 3. ESL 400 Student Progression to ENGL 100, 2010/11 2013/14 4. MATH 110/112 Student Progression to MATH 120/122, 2010/11 2013/14 5. MATH 120/123 Student Progression to MATH 125+, 2010/11 2013/14 Key Findings: College of San Mateo Student Equity Plan 19
The data presented in Tables 1-5 tracks the progression of students who initially enroll in specified target coursework during Academic Year 2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and who subsequently enroll in specified higher level coursework within the discipline (e.g., ESL 828 ESL 400). All course outcomes are tracked through Spring 2014. In accordance with the California Community College Chancellor s Office Student Equity Plan guidelines, the ESL and basic skills course progression rates of the following populations are analyzed: 16. Ethnicity 17. Gender 18. Age 19. Disability status 20. Low income economic status 21. Academic standing (Probation 1, Probation 2, and Dismissed) 22. Foster Youth 23. Veterans The primary Student Equity Plan reference point is the 80% Index. This methodology compares the percentage of each disaggregated population to the percentage attained by a reference population. The reference population is the specific population with the highest rate of success. The methodology is based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 80% Rule, outlined in the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and was used in Title VII enforcement by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice. The 80% Rule states that: A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. [Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43 FR 38295(August 25, 1978)] Any disaggregated group that is included in a desired outcome at less than 80%, when compared to a reference group, is considered to have suffered an adverse or disproportionate - impact. Using this methodology, the 80% Index data column in Tables 1-5 highlights the extent to which various populations progression rates are within or outside of the 80% standard. Using Table 1 and age as an example. Students 40-49 have the highest successful ENGL 838/848 course progression rate: 45.0%. This group s success rate becomes the reference group standard (100%) for evaluating the other age subgroups in term of the 80% Index. The success rate of students 20-24 = 34.8%. This figure is 77.2% of the reference group s success rate of 45.0%. Hence, their 80% Index = 77.2% and is below the 80% rule--and could be considered suffering disproportionate impact.
The designation of which disaggregated populations should be considered as disproportionately impacted is based on local conditions and will rely on the judgment of the CSM Student Equity team. The 80% Index is a suggested guideline only. The data are intended to stimulate conversation and additional investigation into areas where disproportionate impact may be affecting student success. Care should be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50).
Table 1. ENGL 838/848 Student Progression to ENGL 100, 2010/11 2013/14 Enrolled ENGL 838/848 (unduplicated) Progressed to ENGL 100 Count Row N % 80% Index Ethnicity African American 63 28 44.4% 88.9% American Indian/Alaskan Native ** ** ** 100% Asian 150 67 44.7% 89.3% Filipino 124 48 38.7% 77.4% Hispanic 314 109 34.7% 69.4% Multi Races 170 55 32.4% 64.7% Pacific Islander 61 27 44.3% 88.5% White 307 101 32.9% 65.8% Unknown ** ** ** 70.4% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 73.1% Gender Female 518 196 37.8% 100.0% Male 698 251 36.0% 95.0% Not recorded 29 8 27.6% 72.9% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 96.6% Age Younger than 20 757 281 37.1% 82.5% 20-24 328 114 34.8% 77.2% 25-29 63 20 31.7% 70.5% 30-39 43 18 41.9% 93.0% 40-49 20 9 45.0% 100.0% 50-59 ** ** ** 79.4% 60 and older ** ** ** 0.0% Total 1,227 447 36.4% 81.0% Disability Status Receives DSPS services 131 57 43.5% 100.0% No DSPS services 1,114 398 35.7% 82.1% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 84.0% Economic Status Low income student 510 198 38.8% 100.0% Not low income 735 257 35.0% 90.1% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 94.1% Probation 1 Status AY10-11 Probation 2 Status AY10-11 Dismissal Status AY10-11 On probation 1 status 353 121 34.3% 91.5% Not on probation 1 status 892 334 37.4% 100.0% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 97.6% On probation 2 status 154 57 37.0% 100.0% Not on probation 2 status 1,091 398 36.5% 98.6% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 98.7% On dismissal status 78 13 16.7% 44.0% Not on dismissal status 1,167 442 37.9% 100.0% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 96.5%
Enrolled ENGL 838/848 (unduplicated) Progressed to ENGL 100 Count Row N % 80% Index Foster Youth Foster youth 14 4 28.6% 78.1% Not foster youth 1,231 451 36.6% 100.0% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 99.7% Veterans Veteran 34 9 26.5% 72.0% Not a veteran 1,211 446 36.8% 100.0% Total 1,245 455 36.5% 50.5% Notes: This table reports on students who were enrolled in ENGL 838/848 during AY2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and who subsequently enrolled in ENGL 100 through Spring 2014. The 80% Index compares the rate of each subgroup attaining an outcome to the rate attained by the subgroup with the highest rate (reference subgroup). Care must be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50). A result of less than 80 percent is considered evidence of a disproportionate impact. Reference subgroups are in italics. Subgroups suffering disproportionate impact are in bold. ** indicates the suppression of results for subgroups with small counts (n<10), with complementary suppression of at least one other subgroup, for privacy and data reliability concerns. For further discussion, see National Center for Education Statistics Technical Brief 2012-151, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012151.pdf. Source: SMCCCD Student Database: Academic History, Term GPA, and Financial Aid Awards tables.
Table 2. ESL 828 Student Progression to ESL 400, 2010/11 2013/14 Enrolled ESL 828 (unduplicated) Progressed to ESL 400 Count Row N % 80% Index Ethnicity African American ** ** ** 0.0% American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0 --- --- Asian 60 30 50.0% 100.0% Filipino ** ** ** 75.0% Hispanic 40 12 30.0% 60.0% Multi Races ** ** ** 100.0% Pacific Islander 0 0 --- --- White 14 6 42.9% 85.7% Unknown ** ** ** 72.2% Total 167 68 40.7% 81.4% Gender Female 84 33 39.3% 83.8% Male 64 30 46.9% 100.0% Not recorded 19 5 26.3% 56.1% Total 167 68 40.7% 86.9% Age Younger than 20 17 10 58.8% 58.8% 20-24 40 20 50.0% 50.0% 25-29 27 9 33.3% 33.3% 30-39 30 10 33.3% 33.3% 40-49 ** ** ** 31.6% 50-59 ** ** ** 25.0% 60 and older ** ** ** 100.0% Total 139 58 41.7% 41.7% Disability Status Receives DSPS services ** ** ** 100.0% No DSPS services ** ** ** 80.7% Total 167 68 40.7% 81.4% Economic Status Low income student 86 39 45.3% 100.0% Not low income 81 29 35.8% 78.9% Total 167 68 40.7% 89.8% Probation 1 On probation 1 status 16 5 31.3% 74.9% Status AY10-11 Not on probation 1 status 151 63 41.7% 100.0% Total 167 68 40.7% 97.6% Probation 2 On probation 2 status ** ** ** 91.7% Status AY10-11 Not on probation 2 status ** ** ** 100.0% Total 167 68 40.7% 99.6% Dismissal Status On dismissal status ** ** ** 91.7% AY10-11 Not on dismissal status ** ** ** 100.0% Total 167 68 40.7% 99.6%
Enrolled ESL 828 (unduplicated) Progressed to ESL 400 Count Row N % 80% Index Foster Youth Foster youth 0 --- --- --- Not foster youth 167 68 40.7% 100.0% Total 167 68 40.7% 99.6% Veterans Veteran ** ** ** 0.0% Not a veteran ** ** ** 100.0% Total ** ** 40.7% 99.6% Notes: This table reports on students who were enrolled in ESL 828 during AY2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and who subsequently enrolled in ESL 400 through Spring 2014. The 80% Index compares the percentage of each disaggregated subgroup attaining an outcome to the percentage attained by the subgroup with the highest rate (reference subgroup). Care must be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50). A result of less than 80 percent is considered evidence of a disproportionate impact. Reference subgroups are in italics. Subgroups suffering disproportionate impact are in bold. ** indicates the suppression of results for subgroups with small counts (n<10), with complementary suppression of at least one other subgroup, for privacy and data reliability concerns. For further discussion, see National Center for Education Statistics Technical Brief 2012-151, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012151.pdf. Source: SMCCCD Student Database: Academic History, Term GPA, and Financial Aid Awards tables.
Table 3. ESL 400 Student Progression to ENGL 100, 2010/11 2013/14 Ethnicity Gender Age Disability Status Economic Status Probation 1 Status AY10-11 Probation 2 Status AY10-11 Dismissal Status AY10-11 Enrolled ESL 400 (unduplicated) Progressed to ENGL 100 Count Row N % 80% Index African American 0 0 --- --- American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0 --- --- Asian 61 30 49.2% 49.2% Filipino ** ** ** 100.0% Hispanic 46 14 30.4% 30.4% Multi Races ** ** ** 20.0% Pacific Islander ** ** ** 0.0% White ** ** ** 25.0% Unknown ** ** ** 62.1% Total 152 67 44.1% 44.1% Female 81 29 35.8% 53.7% Male 53 26 49.1% 73.6% Not recorded 18 12 66.7% 100.0% Total 152 67 44.1% 66.1% Younger than 20 ** ** ** 100.0% 20-24 34 14 41.2% 41.2% 25-29 ** ** ** 42.9% 30-39 34 14 41.2% 41.2% 40-49 16 2 12.5% 12.5% 50-59 ** ** ** 33.3% 60 and older ** ** ** 0.0% Total 128 51 39.8% 39.8% Receives DSPS services ** ** ** 56.1% No DSPS services 148 66 44.6% 100.0% Total 152 67 44.1% 98.8% Low income student 66 26 39.4% 82.6% Not low income 86 41 47.7% 100.0% Total 152 67 44.1% 92.5% On probation 1 status ** ** ** 74.5% Not on probation 1 status ** ** ** 100.0% Total 152 67 44.1% 98.5% On probation 2 status ** ** ** 75.3% Not on probation 2 status ** ** ** 100.0% Total 152 67 44.1% 99.5% On dismissal status ** ** ** 100.0% Not on dismissal status ** ** ** 72.6% Total 152 67 44.1% 73.5% Foster Foster youth 0 --- --- ---
Enrolled ESL 400 (unduplicated) Progressed to ENGL 100 Count Row N % 80% Index Youth Not foster youth 152 67 44.1% 100.0% Total 152 67 44.1% 100.0% Veterans Veteran ** ** ** 100.0% Not a veteran ** ** ** 65.4% Total 152 67 44.1% 66.1% Notes: This table reports on students who were enrolled in ESL 400 during AY2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and who subsequently enrolled in ENGL 100 through Spring 2014. The 80% Index compares the percentage of each subgroup attaining an outcome to the percentage attained by the subgroup with the highest rate (reference subgroup). Care must be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50). A result of less than 80 percent is considered evidence of a disproportionate impact. Reference subgroups are in italics. Subgroups suffering disproportionate impact are in bold. ** indicates the suppression of results for subgroups with small counts (n<10), with complementary suppression of at least one other subgroup, for privacy and data reliability concerns. For further discussion, see National Center for Education Statistics Technical Brief 2012-151, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012151.pdf. Source: SMCCCD Student Database: Academic History, Term GPA, and Financial Aid Awards tables.
Table 4. MATH 110/112 Student Progression to MATH 120/122, 2010/11 2013/14 Enrolled MATH 110/112 (unduplicated) Progressed to MATH 120/122 Count Row N % 80% Index Ethnicity African American 43 15 34.9% 80.1% American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0 --- --- Gender Age Disability Status Economic Status Probation 1 Status AY10-11 Probation 2 Status AY10-11 Dismissal Status AY10-11 Asian 53 17 32.1% 73.7% Filipino 62 27 43.5% 100.0% Hispanic 229 90 39.3% 90.2% Multi Races 100 42 42.0% 96.4% Pacific Islander 34 13 38.2% 87.8% White 252 97 38.5% 88.4% Unknown 53 22 41.5% 95.3% Total 826 323 39.1% 89.8% Female 402 163 40.5% 100.0% Male 407 158 38.8% 95.7% Not recorded 17 2 11.8% 29.0% Total 826 323 39.1% 96.4% Younger than 20 332 152 45.8% 91.6% 20-24 261 92 35.2% 70.5% 25-29 86 27 31.4% 62.8% 30-39 79 28 35.4% 70.9% 40-49 ** ** ** 70.6% 50-59 20 10 50.0% 100.0% 60 and older ** ** ** 0.0% Total 813 321 39.5% 79.0% Receives DSPS services 93 35 37.6% 95.8% No DSPS services 733 288 39.3% 100.0% Total 826 323 39.1% 99.5% Low income student 341 146 42.8% 100.0% Not low income 485 177 36.5% 85.2% Total 826 323 39.1% 91.3% On probation 1 status 180 61 33.9% 83.6% Not on probation 1 status 646 262 40.6% 100.0% Total 826 323 39.1% 96.4% On probation 2 status 96 28 29.2% 72.2% Not on probation 2 status 730 295 40.4% 100.0% Total 826 323 39.1% 96.8% On dismissal status 60 10 16.7% 40.8% Not on dismissal status 766 313 40.9% 100.0% Total 826 323 39.1% 95.7% Foster Foster youth ** ** ** 51.0%
Enrolled MATH 110/112 (unduplicated) Progressed to MATH 120/122 Count Row N % 80% Index Youth Not foster youth ** ** ** 100.0% Total 826 323 39.1% 99.7% Veterans Veteran 38 10 26.3% 66.2% Not a veteran 788 313 39.7% 100.0% Total 826 323 39.1% 98.5% Notes: This table reports on students who were enrolled in MATH 110/112 during AY2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and who subsequently enrolled in MATH 120/122 through Spring 2014. The 80% Index compares the rate of each subgroup attaining an outcome to the rate attained by the subgroup with the highest rate (reference subgroup). Care must be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50). A result of less than 80 percent is considered evidence of a disproportionate impact. Reference subgroups are in italics. Subgroups suffering disproportionate impact are in bold. ** indicates the suppression of results for subgroups with small counts (n<10), with complementary suppression of at least one other subgroup, for privacy and data reliability concerns. For further discussion, see National Center for Education Statistics Technical Brief 2012-151, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012151.pdf. Source: SMCCCD Student Database: Academic History, Term GPA, and Financial Aid Awards tables.
Table 5. MATH 120/123 Student Progression to MATH 125+, 2010/11 2013/14 Enrolled MATH 120/123 (unduplicated) Progressed to MATH 125+ Count Row N % 80% Index Ethnicity African American 50 17 34.0% 72.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native ** ** ** 35.4% Gender Age Disability Status Economic Status Probation 1 Status AY10-11 Probation 2 Status AY10-11 Dismissal Status AY10-11 Asian 104 49 47.1% 100.0% Filipino 80 36 45.0% 95.5% Hispanic 265 116 43.8% 92.9% Multi Races 98 45 45.9% 97.5% Pacific Islander 29 7 24.1% 51.2% White 329 136 41.3% 87.7% Unknown ** ** ** 81.6% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 89.4% Female 469 200 42.6% 100.0% Male 527 223 42.3% 99.2% Not recorded 30 9 30.0% 70.4% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 98.7% Younger than 20 382 185 48.4% 100.0% 20-24 375 148 39.5% 81.5% 25-29 106 46 43.4% 89.6% 30-39 88 30 34.1% 70.4% 40-49 41 12 29.3% 60.4% 50-59 ** ** ** 41.3% 60 and older ** ** ** 0.0 Total 1,005 423 42.1% 86.9% Receives DSPS services 100 53 53.0% 100.0% No DSPS services 926 379 40.9% 77.2% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 79.4% Low income student 390 168 43.1% 100.0% Not low income 636 264 41.5% 96.4% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 97.7% On probation 1 status 180 62 34.4% 78.8% Not on probation 1 status 846 370 43.7% 100.0% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 96.3% On probation 2 status 90 26 28.9% 66.6% Not on probation 2 status 936 406 43.4% 100.0% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 97.1% On dismissal status 47 7 14.9% 34.3% Not on dismissal status 979 425 43.4% 100.0% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 97.0%
Enrolled MATH 120/123 (unduplicated) Progressed to MATH 125+ Count Row N % 80% Index Foster Youth Foster youth ** ** ** 100.0% Not foster youth ** ** ** 98.1% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 98.1% Veterans Veteran ** ** ** 94.8% Not a veteran ** ** ** 100.0% Total 1,026 432 42.1% 99.8% Notes: This table reports on students who were enrolled in MATH 120/123 during AY2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and who subsequently enrolled in MATH 125/130/145/200/241 through Spring 2014. The 80% Index compares the rate of each subgroup attaining an outcome to the rate attained by the subgroup with the highest rate (reference subgroup). Care must be taken when interpreting results with low subgroup counts (n<50). A result of less than 80 percent is considered evidence of a disproportionate impact. Reference subgroups are in italics. Subgroups suffering disproportionate impact are in bold. ** indicates the suppression of results for subgroups with small counts (n<10), with complementary suppression of at least one other subgroup, for privacy and data reliability concerns. For further discussion, see National Center for Education Statistics Technical Brief 2012-151, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012151.pdf. Source: SMCCCD Student Database: Academic History, Term GPA, and Financial Aid Awards tables.
District: San Mateo County Community College District College: College of San Mateo CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH D. DEGREE and CERTIFICATE COMPLETION. Ratio of the number of students by population group who receive a degree or certificate to the number of students in that group with the same informed matriculation goal. CSM local research tracked students who met with counselors for Student Education Plan (SEP) reasons during AY2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and indicated an educational goal of obtaining an Associate Degree or Certificate. Students academic history was analyzed in terms of the rate at which those students subsequently earned any Degree or Certificate through Spring 2014. Degree and Certificate completion rates of the following populations are analyzed: ethnicity, gender, age, disability status, low income economic status, foster youth, and veterans. Both Certificates of Achievement and Certificates of Specialization are counted. Due to small n sizes associated with many of the disaggregated populations identified for disproportionate impact analysis, several groups were identified for disproportionate impact. Caution is advised with low subgroup counts (n<50). Beyond the 80% Index standard, the CSM Equity Committee is concerned about increasing the rate at which all students earn degrees and certificates. Data for CSM Student Equity Plan 2014 Indicator #4 Degree and Certificate Completion Degree and Certificate Completion: Student Equity Plan Definition The ratio of the number of students by population group who receive a degree or certificate to the number of students in that group with the same informed matriculation goal as documented in the student educational plan developed with a counselor/advisor. Data Included: Table 1: Degree and Certificate Completion of Degree-Seeking Students, Fall 2010 Spring 2014 Table 2: Degree Completion of Degree-Seeking Students, Fall 2010 Spring 2014 Table 3: Degree and Certificate Completion of Certificate-Seeking Students, Fall 2010 Spring 2014 Table 4: Certificate Completion of Certificate-Seeking Students, Fall 2010 Spring 2014 Key Findings: The data presented in Tables 1-4 track students who both met with counselors for Student Education Plan (SEP) reasons during AY2010-11 (Summer-Fall-Spring) and College of San Mateo Student Equity Plan 32
indicated an educational goal of obtaining an Associate Degree or Certificate, and reports on the rate at which those students subsequently earned any Degree or Certificate through Spring 2014. Both Certificates of Achievement and Certificates of Specialization are counted. In accordance with the California Community College Chancellor s Office Student Equity Plan guidelines, the Degree and Certificate completion rates of the following populations are analyzed: 24. Ethnicity 25. Gender 26. Age 27. Disability status 28. Low income economic status 29. Foster Youth 30. Veterans The primary Student Equity Plan reference point is the 80% Index. This methodology compares the percentage of each disaggregated population to the percentage attained by a reference population. The reference population is the specific population with the highest rate of success. The methodology is based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 80% Rule, outlined in the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and was used in Title VII enforcement by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice. The 80% Rule states that: A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. [Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43 FR 38295(August 25, 1978)] Any disaggregated group that is included in a desired outcome at less than 80%, when compared to a reference group, is considered to have suffered an adverse or disproportionate - impact. Using this methodology, the 80% Index data column in Tables 1-4 highlights the extent to which various populations degree and certificate completion rates are within or outside of the 80% standard. Using Table 1 and age as an example. Students 40-49 have the highest successful Degree and Certificate completion rate: 46.4%. This group s completion rate becomes the reference group standard (100%) for evaluating the other age subgroups in term of the 80% Index. The completion rate of students 25-29 = 26.7%. This figure is 57.5% of the reference group s success rate of 46.4%. Hence, their 80% Index = 57.5% and is below the 80% rule--and could be considered suffering disproportionate impact.